Eruvin 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

It is necessary for us to ask:

the reverse—

what is the ruling?

That is:

A. If one made a tzurat ha-petah for a mavoi whose height was more than twenty cubits, placing the upper beam above the two side beams.

For one might say that a tzurat ha-petah also requires some degree of recognition, as does a lehi, which requires some degree of recognition even according to the one who says that a lehi functions because of its status as a partition. Hesed LeAvraham, second series, section 40.

B. If one made an amletara—a decorative beam—for the entrance of a mavoi that was wider than ten cubits,

does it help, or not?

And we resolve one question:

Come and hear, as it was taught explicitly:

explicitly:

A mavoi whose height is more than twenty cubits—

one must reduce it.

But if it has a tzurat ha-petah, he need not reduce it.

And we resolve one of them from this!

But we still need to ask:

an amletara across its width

of the mavoi—

what is the ruling?

Come and hear:

from this

as it was taught: A mavoi whose height is more than twenty cubits—

one must reduce it.

And one that is wider than ten cubits—

one must reduce it.

But if it has a tzurat ha-petah—

he need not reduce it.

And if it has an amletara—

he need not reduce it.

Is it not the case,

that when it says, “And if it has an amletara, he need not reduce it,” this also applies

to the latter clause,

which states, “A mavoi that is wider than ten cubits, one must reduce it,” and concerning this it says that if it has an amletara, he need not reduce it?

And we reject this:

No,

the allowance of an amletara does not apply to the latter clause, to say that by means of an amletara there is no need to reduce it.

Rather,

it applies only to the first clause,

which states: “A mavoi whose height is more than twenty cubits—one must reduce it.”

The Gemara now returns to the matter taught in the Mishna: If it has a tzurat ha-petah, although it is wider than ten cubits, he need not reduce it!

And we say:

He taught it to him

[he was teaching it]

Rav Yehuda taught Hiyya bar Rav

our Mishna

before Rav,

using the wording of our Mishna: A mavoi that is wider than ten cubits and has a tzurat ha-petah—

he need not reduce it!

Rav said to him,

Rav said to Rav Yehuda: This is not the wording of the Mishna.

Rather,

teach it to him

[this is how you should teach the Mishna to my son Hiyya]:

he must reduce it

and make the mavoi no wider than ten cubits, because a tzurat ha-petah is effective only for an entrance that is no wider than ten cubits.

Rav Yosef said: From the words of our master

Rav—who maintains that a tzurat ha-petah is not effective when the entrance is wider than ten cubits—

we learn:

A courtyard whose majority

of each of its four walls is made up of

entrances and windows,

so that it is not permitted to carry within it, since the breaches exceed the standing portions—

is not rendered permitted

even

by a tzurat ha-petah

that he makes for its entrances and windows, even if they are each less than ten cubits wide! [See illustration 1]

For just as a tzurat ha-petah is ineffective to render a breach in a mavoi wider than ten cubits an “entrance,” so too a tzurat ha-petah is ineffective when the breaches exceed the standing portions, even when the entrances are less than ten cubits wide!

And we explain it:

What is the reason

for comparing the law of a tzurat ha-petah in a breach in a mavoi with a tzurat ha-petah where the breaches exceed the standing portions?

Since

an entrance to a mavoi that is

more than ten cubits renders the mavoi prohibited

and a courtyard.

And

likewise,

breaches exceeding the standing portions render a courtyard prohibited.

Therefore, we can learn by analogy:

Just as an opening wider than ten cubits, which renders a mavoi prohibited, is not rendered permitted—

according to Rav—

by a tzurat ha-petah,

so too breaches exceeding the standing portions, which render a courtyard prohibited, are not rendered permitted by a tzurat ha-petah!

We derive from this binyan av only the case of breaches exceeding the standing portions in all four partitions.

For one wall that is breached by more than ten cubits is comparable to breaches exceeding the standing portions in all four walls, where each breach is less than ten cubits wide.

Since the reason that an opening wider than ten cubits is prohibited is that it is not called an “entrance,” and it is for this reason alone that a tzurat ha-petah is ineffective for it,

it follows that we may learn from here that the same law applies to breaches exceeding the standing portions on all four sides: a tzurat ha-petah will not be effective there, since people do not ordinarily make an entrance extending along all four sides [when each entrance is greater than the standing portion; Sefat Emet], Tosafot.

And we refute the possibility of learning by analogy:

For

what is true of an opening wider than ten cubits, which renders a mavoi prohibited,

is that it is logical not to render it permitted by a tzurat ha-petah,

since

an opening wider than ten cubits is more stringent, as

you did not permit it

even

in the case of the partitions around wells

[as explained above, page 10a]

according to

the view of

Rabbi Meir

[who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda, below, on page 17b]. [See illustration 2]

Can you say the same of breaches exceeding the standing portions, which render a courtyard prohibited, since

they are less stringent, as

you permitted them in the case of the partitions around wells,

where the breached area exceeds the standing area [for the standing portion consists only of one cubit on each side, while the breach is ten cubits], and nevertheless it is permitted to carry there

according to everyone.

And we consider this:

Can we say that this supports

the one who says that a tzurat ha-petah is ineffective when the breaches exceed the standing portions?

From this

which was taught: These walls, whose majority consists of entrances

[see illustrations 1 and 2] and windows—

it is permitted

to carry within the area that they enclose,

provided that there is

in the walls

more standing area than breached area!

At first we interpret the beraita, and raise an objection to it:

Does the expression “These walls

whose majority

consists of entrances and windows”

occur to your mind!?

Could it enter your mind that the tanna was in fact discussing such walls!?

That is impossible.

For immediately afterward it teaches: “Provided that there is more standing area than breached area,” and not that the majority consists of entrances and windows?!

Rather,

necessarily,

say:

These walls

in which he increased the number of entrances and windows,

it is permitted to carry there,

provided that there is more standing area than breached area.

And now it is proven that a tzurat ha-petah is not effective when the breached area in each wall exceeds the standing area. For entrances and windows have a tzurat ha-petah, and nevertheless we require that the standing area be greater than the breached area!

Said

—Rabbi Kahana

said

and rejected the proof:

When that was taught, it was

with defective entrances

[literally, “desolate entrances”; some explain this as damaged and incomplete entrances, like an ashmai elder who is deficient in Torah], which do not have a complete tzurat ha-petah.

And as he explains:

What are defective entrances?

Rav Rahumi and Rav Yosef disagreed about this: One said: They lack sideposts

[doorposts]. The doorposts at the sides of the entrance are not straight; rather, one stone projects inward and another projects outward, and this is not a tzurat ha-petah.

And one said: They lack a ceiling,

for the entrance is open along the entire height of the wall, with no ceiling above it; therefore, there is no tzurat ha-petah, which consists of one beam on each side [the doorposts] and a beam above them [the lintel].

And Rabbi Yohanan also held in accordance with this view of Rav

above, who said that a tzurat ha-petah is ineffective to define an opening as an “entrance” when it is wider than ten cubits!

For Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzhak said: An incident occurred involving a certain man from the valley of Beit Hورتan

[a place],

who planted four poles at the four corners of a field and stretched a vine branch over them

from pole to pole, in the form of a tzurat ha-petah. [See illustration 3]

The incident was brought before the Sages, and they permitted him with regard to kilayim,

so that he could sow adjacent to the tzurat ha-petah, even though there were grapevines within the area enclosed by the poles.

Since with regard to avoiding the prohibition of kilayim, any partition is effective, even a partition that does not actually separate the seeds, as does the partition of a vineyard. As we learned in Kilayim: If there was a fence between them, this one—the owner of the grapevines—may place his vines adjacent to the fence on this side, and that one—the owner of the seeds—may place his seeds adjacent to the fence on that side, although in the ground they are not separated and draw nourishment together. Therefore, a “tzurat ha-petah” also suffices.

And Reish Lakish said: Just as they permitted him

to regard the tzurat ha-petah as a partition

with regard to kilayim, so they permitted him

also

with regard to Shabbat

to regard it as a partition and carry within the area enclosed by the poles. [This is explained according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda in Tosafot.]

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Only

with regard to kilayim did they permit him,

but

with regard to Shabbat they did not permit him.

And we explain it:

With what are we dealing

in this incident?

If you say

that the case concerns one who did not stretch the vine branch over the “tops” of the poles, but

from the side

[along their faces] he attached the vine branch [whether at their midpoint or near their tops, Ritva], and that is why Rabbi Yohanan prohibited it? [See illustration 1]

But Rav Hisda said: A tzurat ha-petah made from the side is entirely ineffective

with regard to Shabbat, since it does not resemble an entrance, whose lintel rests upon two doorposts [Rosh]. How, then, could Reish Lakish say that it is effective even with regard to Shabbat?! [See illustration 2]

Rather,

the case must certainly concern one who placed the vine branch

on top of them

—directly on top of the poles! [See illustration 3]

And with what

are we dealing?

If you say

that there were

ten

cubits or less between one pole and the next,

would

Rabbi Yohanan say in such a case

that

with regard to Shabbat they did not permit him?! For when the distance is ten cubits, everyone agrees that it is an entrance?!

Rather, is it not the case that the matter

concerns

a

distance

greater than ten

cubits between one pole and the next, and that is why Rabbi Yohanan said that it is ineffective with regard to Shabbat, since he maintains that a tzurat ha-petah is ineffective for an entrance wider than ten cubits!

We see, then, that Rabbi Yohanan holds in accordance with Rav.

And we reject this:

No,

here Rabbi Yohanan is not dealing with an entrance wider than ten cubits. Nor did Rabbi Yohanan prohibit it for this reason.

Rather,

actually,

only

ten

[and not more] is the case here.

And

as we initially proposed, the tzurat ha-petah was made

from the side.

That is why Rabbi Yohanan prohibited it. [See illustration 4]

And if you raise a difficulty from Rav Hisda, who prohibited one made from the side, and raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish, who permitted it, it is not difficult:

And with regard to Rav Hisda,

himself,

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagree!

For Reish Lakish, who holds that they permitted him to use one made from the side even with regard to Shabbat, disagrees with Rav Hisda.

And Rabbi Yohanan maintains in accordance with Rav Hisda.

For Rav Hisda, too, said that one made from the side is ineffective only with regard to Shabbat, but not with regard to kilayim, since Shabbat is more stringent than kilayim!

And we raise an objection, in order to uphold what we said—that Rabbi Yohanan holds in accordance with Rav:

And Rabbi Yohanan’s statement contradicts Rabbi Yohanan’s statement.

And Reish Lakish’s statement contradicts Reish Lakish’s statement.